The cost of individual embarassment, I argue is grossly outweighed by the mutual benefit of shared communal knowledge and community building of the current settings. It is clear to me that from any individual perspective, who might feel individual harm, that the harm will always seem to outweigh the communal good, this is why we have to be wary of the argument of individual harm, it is a variation of the classic 'utility monster' problem of all arguments from utility. If someone feels so significantly more harmed or harmable than others, then the community is left with no response, in pursuit of a shared good defined in utility, than to modify their actions to the period of no harm. In fact, if harm is an issue, the slippery slide is that we should just close the list, as that is the only way of preventing the harm mentioned. The best way to solve the issue of harm from misposting is two fold. First we recognize that harm will occur, and when it does, we should sympathize and care for the harmed as one of us, and help them recover as best as we can. The second best way is to encourage people to be aware of the list settings, a 'list literacy' campaign....